Readers

November 01, 2010

Today's Star-Telegram carried news I've dreaded -- an obituary about the death of a Fort Worth newspaper giant, Phil Record. Phil was 81 and had lived a full life blessed with loving family, admiring colleagues and many honors during his long journalism career.

Phil's legacy will go on for centuries, maybe forever. His resume on TCU's website provides far more perspective than today's story could offer. It's worth reading and contemplating. Thanks to TCU's skiffvideo, there are two interviews with Phil that are on YouTube. There he is in his Notre Dame sweatshirt (he was a proud alum), talking about his career. As compelling as ever. The interviews are here and here.

No one loved journalism and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram more than Phil. I was amazed at the level of S-T ownership he felt. He was known literally around the world in newspaper circles as a champion of ethical practices. He was a lead player in the Society of Professional Journalists' development of an SPJcode of ethics and was one of the primary writers. He was a leading voice as well in the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO).

I'd always heard of Phil wherever I worked -- Dallas, Denver, St. Pete, etc. But I never got to meet him until I began work at the S-T in 2000. That was three years after he had retired, but nothing kept Phil out of the newsroom for long. He maintained a close relationship with the paper. And what a delight he was to meet. Jovial, charismatic, sharing questions and thoughts with a contagious laugh. Several times a day every day, S-T editors gather in the Phil Record Conference Room just off the newsroom to go over the news budgets and decide content for the next day's paper and the online product.

I like to think I had a special bond with him. Phil and I each had 7-year tenures as Star-Telegram ombudsman. He was the paper’s first (1990-1997). I was the paper’s last (2001-2008). In between were Paul Harral (the last fulltime ombudsman) and Lance Murray. Phil gave me plenty of advice, much of which is included in this column he wrote in 1996.

My memories of Phil are a massive jumble –- like the piles of odds and ends in every drawer of the huge old wooden desk that all of we ombuddies had used. Phil was always generous in his response whenever I needed guidance, ideas or encouragement.

We shared deep concern about the toxic erosion of news media credibility and some newspaper organizations' lack of response. We shared concern about newspapers' selling out to soft entertainment news and pop culture at the expense of giving strongly focused attention to hard-news coverage.

We shared the same view of the ombuddy role: it’s a ministry. It’s aimed at caring about people and trying to help them. Humility is essential. You check your ego at the door.

We had the same practice: we would pray for strength before and throughout the workday, and we would pray for the intolerant souls we had to deal with, a problem that increased markedly during my tenure as civility in political dialogue vanished and strident denunciation of the free press increased.

Phil was a man of faith. One spring day in 2001 not long after I’d stepped into the ombudsman role, I was cleaning out a bookcase in the ombudsman office and came across a Bible that was Phil’s, according to the filled-in “This Bible belongs to” line.

I called Phil to see if he wanted me to mail it to him. “Keep it,” he said. “You’ll need it.” And remember, he added (I don’t recall his exact words, but I remember his point): Jesus listened. So do good ombuddies.

Got a memory of Phil you'd like to share? Or a complaint or commendation about today's journalism?

September 26, 2010

Wouldn’t you know Bud Kennedy would lead a Sunday fruit page? I’m sure his many enemies enjoyed that. And his many fans (including me and my wife), who probably chuckled when they saw parallels between the ads and Bud’s topic. But I digress. And I apologize for not being able to stitch together the fruit page, but at least you get the idea.

Satr I was scrubbing skillets early this morning (had to make the 9 a.m. mass) from Saturday night’s chalupa fest when my wife, who was leafing through the paper on the breakfast counter, said: “Have you seen this?”

She held up Sunday’s gawd-awful Page 2B. “When I first started reading this page,” she said, “I kept thinking, ‘How does this art go with these stories?’ ” News readers think in such shocking ways. Then it dawned on her: This page had been savaged by invasive advertising – the kind that says: To hell with news columns. We want you, reader, to focus on these oranges, limes and that apple wth a stem in your eye. I know the eye-movement studies. You can bet that apple stem stopped more than a few readers’ eye movement as did the limes and oranges. Suggested to me that space on a page is too valuable to waste on a smart-ass columnist, another murder story and yet another environment story related to “clean-coal” power plant issues. Right? Is any of that new and compelling in its effort to open windows on life? Yawner news? Wouldn’t think so, but I’d be interested to know how readership was affected by citrus fruit rolling into Bud’s space, an apple poking into the murder story and a huge orange muscling its way into the environment story.

We’ve become accustomed to seeing ads like this that cut into news’ space. Bully for you, bully ads.

Time was when you stayed on your side of the page, and news stayed on its side. Not anymore. News (the revenue-reduction department, as I’ve heard news content ridiculed by the bean-counters) gives it up quickly for advertising. And we know why advertising can kick news’ butt these days. The for-profit model rules. Papers are struggling to find revenue wherever and however they can find it. What’s left of the news staff doesn’t care anymore, I’d guess. Let ads invade news columns. Who cares? Staff’s more likely to have a job tomorrow. Credibility may take a kidney punch, but the place is open for business tomorrow. I understand all that.

So why am I so bothered by those invasive ads? Yes, I know that 50% of readers pick up a paper for its news content and 50% of readers pick up a paper for its ad content. That’s an old but persistent and true statistic. Question is, which side is going to take it in the bum when the revenue going gets tough? And, is that even a worthwhile question to raise?

Serious readers are going to read 2B’s thought-provoking Kennedy column and those two stories even if an apple stem’s poking them in the eye. But I’d guess that less-serious readers will get mesmerized by the fruit. “Damn, Dawnie baby. Look at how this fruit kinda jumps off the page at ya. Ain't that fun?”

God bless them for subscribing or buying a single copy instead of just going online for free, but they’ll pay less attention to the news content in a space dominated by nvasive advertising. What’s so bad about that?

Readers may not learn anything. They may not form ideas and opinions based on the news content. They will be less informed, less American. They have this Florida (California?)Orange from Mars at which to gaze and contemplate. I suppose oranges and other fruits aren’t a bad thing to think about and to give thanks for, assuming they aren’t genetically engineered fruit (or, what if they are? Anyone asking?), but perhaps it would be better for less-serious readers in this environment-challenged DFW with its toxic air to be mulling environment challenges instead of the glories of oranges, limes and apples. But if one’s fixated on fruit, to heck with juicy hard news.

Another issue for me is the compromised time readers will spend with a page. It isn’t much. It’s literally seconds. Probably less than half a minute or maybe 15 seconds with Page 2B. The more time many readers spend gawking at invasive advertising because it’s so compelling visually (and we are visual creatures and can’t help that), the less time they’ll spend with news content and whatever provocative information it could impart.

Enough already. I want to see news that respects ad columns and ads that respect news columns. That’s not happening on today’s 2B. And that’s not good. Revenue can pay diminishing returns. Invasive ads send a bad signal and a troubling perception -– the S-T’s not a serious news product, it’s just a cash cow for McClatchy.

I know the S-T news staff, and I know they’re professionals, from the executive editor on down, and they reflect the respectable motivations that journalists bring to the table. But those commendable qualities are lost on much of the public these days as the anti-media forces whack and chop at the media’s credibility every chance they get. And what’s so sad is that a chunk of the public buys into what they hear. Pages like today’s 2B are no help in preserving journalism’s credibility. It’s just all about making money, right? Unfortunately, yes. But if that’s what it takes to keep excellent journalists working, then bring on papayas and mangos. And where are the bananas and bell peppers?

But I urge people who believe that the media’s only interested in profits to take a look at Pulitzer Prize-winning efforts for the past 20 or 30 years, take a look at how less-than-prize-winning coverage keeps public officials more sensitive to the need to clean up their act, take a look at how coverage inspires community forums to discuss local concerns. Case in point: debates over the City of Fort Worth’s pension issues. Journalists keep local affairs clear and honest. As much as they can.

Of course, for newspapers, all of that happens primarily on the printed page and, yes, to some degree in cyberspace nowadays (but there you have these cursed floating ads that temporarily obscure one’s ability to read the news). My point is that anything that cripples the Fourth Estate’s ability to connect with readers needs to be addressed with mucho cajones and shown the door or laughed down Seventh Street. Ain’t gonna happen, though, I fear. The prevailing idea, it seems, is to embrace money first and First Amendment stuff maybe will follow.

The for-profit model takes out journalists' kneecaps very proficiently.

But it bothers the hell out of me when I think that oranges, limes and apples are all it takes to inflict a crippling blow on credible sources of reliable news and information. At least we haven’t seen that sort of invasiveness yet on the sports pages and the editorial/op-ed pages where J.R. Labbe, Bob Ray Sanders, Linda Campbell and Mike Norman have been spared the fruit bullying.

Thank God. Those are some of the brightest lights in this city as are Celeste Williams, Randy Galloway, Gil Lebreton and colleagues. But that’s sort of easy to understand. Thinking people, the types who read editorial/op-ed content at least, and sports fans whose passions bulldoze ads’ attempts to stop their brawls, are not low-hanging fruit who can be distracted easily. They’re not worth ad dollars unless those ads can match the passions in whose presence they presume to plop and command attention. Could happen, but those readers set the bar high – way too high for advertising of Madmen’s ilk. And I love that. Show me an ad that can rivet attnetion on an op-ed or sports page, and I'll show you an ad that's damn genius stuff.

Make those ad/pr people work their butts off -- just like news staff does. Fight like hell over the space on news pages. Knock heads. You good enough to get in that fight? Yes? No?

Bottom line: Make ads work harder in their space. Don’t invade news columns. They need to be strong enough not to coattail on news' muscle. After all, news organization’s credibility gives ads their value. Yes? If you don't agree, you're not much of ad/pr person. If you do agree, you need to tell the S-T to quit selling its space on the (credibility) cheap.

September 21, 2010

Interesting play art on today's Your Life cover in the Star-Telegram: a photo illustration for the lead story, "Fall books preview." The art was a collage of photos of famous people whose books will be coming out soon.

Take a long look. Is there anything about the photo illustration that bothers you? Perhaps not. But I imagine that the paper's reader advocate phone line quickly filled with furious, outspoken conservatives provoked by an illustration that, in their view, deliberately slighted icons Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Instead (I can hear them say, because in my ombuddy days I got so many calls like this) the illustration by the liberal media glorified "arch liberals" -- Jon Stewart, Steve Martin, Barack Obama, Barbra Streisand and some brunette who's probably just as bad as they are. And I can imagine the readers' accusations:

-- George Bush looks like a ghost. George should've been where Jon is.

-- I'm not letting my kids see this liberal-media propaganda.

-- I'm not letting my grandkids see this liberal-media propaganda.

-- I'm cancelling my subscription to the liberal media. I've had it with your liberal bias.

-- Rush Limbaugh's right. There's a "media crisis" in America.

-- This is a sad day in America.

There's no escaping political aspects of anything anymore, it seems. Not even authors. Perhaps there never has been.

In this area, the heaviest conservative market in Texas, the most provocative aspect of this photo illustration, I think, is not just the secondary place given to Reagan and Bush but the near-transparent treatment of Bush's photo. That's asking for trouble. I imagine trouble followed.

If you had been the editor in charge of pulling together this photo illustration, how would you have handled it? Would politicization issues have crossed your mind? If so, would that have made any difference in how you would have designed the piece? What other aspects would you have considered?

Given the demographic with which papers aim to connect (younger readers in general) and given Stewart's popularity among them, I may have kept Stewart as the dominant image for a boost in relevance.

But given the demographic of subscribers (older conservatives) and readers who expect fairness, I would've strengthened Bush's picture somehow to provide as much relevance as possible for them. I'm not sure I would've replaced that brunette, whoever she is, with Bush, because there are only two women in the collage and five men, and correctness dictates that some sense of equivalent prominence be given to the women.

Whatever. I'm sure those and Lord knows how many other issues got a thorough airing today on the reader advocate's phone. Did you think about calling? 817-390-7692

February 19, 2010

For a good while, we readers have seen typos cropping up in places once protected by a sacred caste -- proofreaders. They operated with authority and an equally sacred mandate: Catch typos and anything, from incorrect grammar to questionable facts, that would compromise commitment to fairness, accuracy and balance, a.k.a., credibility.

We miss proofreaders, particularly when finding typographical errors in books, of all places. But it isn’t surprising to find typos in books. Once upon a time, encountering a typo in a book would have shocked and dismayed a reader. Typos were shameful proof of lapses in quality and pride. They were horrifying, sort of like the sight of a colleague at work sporting bed hair and reeking of morning breath.

Such thoughts flared anew recently on noticing this envelope in the daily mail. Perhaps the sender, a non-profit organization, had noticed the typo and regretted the error but couldn’t afford to have the envelopes corrected and reprinted. Whatever the reason, the typo disrupted the organization’s sales message. I didn’t open the envelope.

I’ll watch for more instances of typos, and if you come across an example, send it to me. Together, we can form a typo patrol. And if you’re interested in typos, check out shamefultypos.com, a wonderful, if saddening, site.

January 04, 2010

That’ll work. Even in print. Especially among kids and the forever young who love bodily function humor, particularly anything involving belches and farts.

No one knows that better than the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, a.k.a. the childrens museum.

There’s a perfect illustration in today’s Star-Telegram. Check out the two-color (purple and black) 6x3 ad stripped across the bottom of the Fiesta Bowl commemorative section’s cover. “Fossil fuels. They’re a gas,” the ad’s headlines say. See that dinosaur wearing a football helmet and holding a “Go Frogs!” pennant? See that cloud-shaped burst of flatulence?

Is that any way to cheer? Is that the museum’s comment on all this purple rah-rah stuff? Nationally ranked TCU is going on national TV tonight, and the museum trots out a dinosaur that rips a fart?

I can hear the reader reaction now. Some will be appalled. The bridge club president, chilled and horrified by such open crudeness, will protest. A young and very godly mom will lash out, warning that she won’t be able to show her children the section during home school because farts are not funny and have no place at the table of righteousness. And probably there’ll be some media-hating devotee of Rightness who’ll condemn yet another example of how media filth is responsible for every social ill in the land.

But I’ll bet far more readers than not will laugh as hard as my wife and I did this morning when we saw the dino fart and howled. Struck me as marketing genius with a sense of humor and lightening-up that our politically smothered society desperately needs. The museum knows exactly how to communicate and bond with its market. And is there a better bonding, yea demystifying, agent than farts? What clears the air of pretense and prudeness better than a rowdy fart or a silent, deadly cloud of horror that can empty a crowded space in seconds and force brutally frank discussion. What better example is there of the common ground that humans share with monkeys, bovines and all other sources of greenhouse gas emitters? Farts level the playing ground of life.

I remember the story that a dear friend of mine, the late political consultant Martha Ricks, told me back in the '70s about Sen. John Tower and how he enjoyed standing in the back of a packed elevator in Washington and quietly ripping a deadly burst of flatulence that would send the starchy, snooty occupants into a nervous shuffle and a stampede toward the door at the elevator’s next stop. And who knows? Maybe that resulted in some life-saving exercise for those who opted to take the stairs.

Maybe the museum’s on to something that newspapers should note. They’ve been trying, and failing, for a long time to reach young readers with content that’ll hook 'em on making the daily paper a regular part of their lives. Maybe plain old grossology holds a solution.

I suppose the most compelling question I have about the museum’s ad is why the colors weren’t reversed. Why wasn’t the fart purple instead of white? A purple fart would’ve had way more visual impact, I’d say. So many people and businesses are saying they bleed purple, which is becoming a pretty worn-out, frayed phrase. But the dinosaur could send a fresh message: “I fart purple!” But maybe that would’ve crossed some sort of line. Something may have hit the fan.

December 10, 2009

A number of readers and colleagues keep asking what I think about a recent move at The Dallas Morning News that has 11 news department segments reporting to advertising managers instead of newsside managers. Most of us learned about this from Robert Wilonsky’s Dallas Observerblog that reported the decision and carried the Dec. 2 memo that was sent to staff from DMN Editor Bob Mong and senior vice president of sales Cyndy Carr. Plenty of reaction followed on the Web. Google and see.

Mong, to his credit, didn't shy away from questions. And Publisher Jim Moroney was pulled into the discussion as well.

My knee-jerk reaction was alarm. News sections reporting to advertising? That smacked of perverse whoring at its worst until I looked further into what’s going on. Except for the organizational chart, which gags me, I don’t see much that’s new. And I don't like the thought of ad people possibly celebrating the long-desired taking of part of "the revenue-reduction department" as, over the years, I've heard ad- and business-side people refer to news departments that aggressively and effectively serve the public interest, which is what they're supposed to be doing.

Collaboration between soft news departments and advertising departments has gone on for decades, and there are policies that support it. For instance, when was the last time you saw news of an airliner disaster on a page carrying an airline ad? When was the last time you saw an expose on red-lining in the real estate section?

Collaboration shows up often in the development of special sections. But at metro dailies like The News and elsewhere, editors generally have developed news content according to news value and not because some business had bought a huge chunk of advertising in a section. In a situation like that, the ad buy tended to be based on the fact that a story was planned on a trend, a product category or the advertiser or whatever, and the story was planned because editors knew it had news value. The story had news value because of readers’ real or potential interest in the topic and need to know. Professionalism in the reporting and presentation of the story ensured a credible piece. A newsy section filled with content like that ensured a product with high news value, which in turn created high advertising value -- a strong vehicle in which to advertise. Sounds to me like that’s what The News is going after. They know as most of us do that credible news value is the single most vital ingredient in creating fertile territory for advertising in any for-profit news product. Advertising revenue floats the boat but doesn't power it. That's the news department's job.

The only criticism I have of The News' step is the new organization. I don’t like editors reporting to advertising. That creates the perception of advertising running newsside, and that’s a perception that can poison credibility, which The News understands and is an issue the Mong and Carr address in their memo.

Advertising exudes a potent presence. If handled in a tasteless manner, it can project a destructive presence, especially in the minds of that half of readership that subscribe or buy a paper principally for its news content. What would parishioners think if, say, they walked in to mass and hanging up there above the altar was a big Drink Pepsi sign instead of a crucifix? And maybe they’d noticed the holy water font sporting a decal for Ozark water. Obviously, Pepsi and Ozark would never pull such a perverse stunt, because they respect lines that separate sacred and secular. In a for-profit news product (and don’t get me started on that), which to me is still a sacred thing, advertising obviously has its place but it should respect where it is and act accordingly. When advertising muscles in on news space, that’s crossing and disrespecting a line and asking for trouble. Perhaps you’ve noticed as I have those god-awful pages in the Star-Telegram where ads chop into news space like bullies bellying up to a reader’s face. Disgusting and as repulsive as an egotistical airhead at a party who impolitely disrupts personal conversation. But it’s salary-paying revenue, right?

I could go on and on about all this as many of us could without even scratching the surface. There are many other aspects of The News' step that are worth exploring. For instance, the ad managers to whom newsside will report have been retitled as "general managers." Did they get a raise? Any raises given to newsside staff who'll be reporting to them? Whatever. Enough said.

To reiterate my concern about The News’ step, I don’t like editors reporting to ad managers. Why not the other way around to avoid threats to credibility? Mong says he and editors reserve the right to step in and to refuse to cross lines that would jeopardize credibility. That's good, but that’s weird. They’re going to say “No” to their bosses in the ad department? What does that say about perceptions of those ad-side people's news judgment and ethics? Why have them as bosses in the first place? But maybe those ad bosses will learn something about journalism. Maybe content that results will be infused with journalistic professionalism and high-quality news value. We can hope. At least hard-news departments like the city desk, state desk, etc., don’t appear to be part of the plan. As Mong and Carr’s memo says: “To better align with our clients' needs, we will be organized around eleven business and content segments with similar marketing and consumer profiles including: sports, health/education, entertainment, travel/luxury, automotive, real estate, communications, preprints/grocery, recruitment, retail/finance, and SMB/Interactive.”

There are some hard-news categories in that lineup, but they all have consumer dimensions as well that lend themselves to softer but still newsworthy coverage. We’ll see whether writers in soft departments generate the coverage or whether the hard-news gladiators get called up for duty.